Talk:Constitution class
FA status Nomination * Constitution class. I don't think I've missed any information. Especially an extended interior design tour, and extensive background and design information. Ottens 16:27, 15 Feb 2005 (GMT) **'Supported' Tyrant 17:10, 15 Feb 2005 (GMT)Tyrant **'Supported' - All the important points seem to be there; the article is well-written. -- Balok 18:36, 15 Feb 2005 (GMT) **'Support.' Good, well rounded article. -- SmokeDetector47 00:53, 16 Feb 2005 (GMT) Citations needed The following notes have been in the article without citation for a few months now. Removed here pending citation: * One issue with the bridge design is the single offset turbolift. The location does not line up with the ''Enterprise model, which shows a turbolift alcove directly behind the main bridge. According to Jefferies, this offset placement was necessary to allow characters to walk onto the bridge and photographed without being blocked by actors sitting in the command chair.'' * Jefferies also mentioned that Spock's sensor hood is a tip of the hat to early RADAR used by World War II battleships. Ambient room light would wash out the weak signals of early RADAR imagery, so hoods were used to cover RADAR screens. Because modern RADAR imagery is brighter, viewing hoods are no longer needed. * William Shatner, director on , had been so impressed with Herman Zimmerman's work on ''The Next Generation as production designer that he hired Zimmerman to upgrade the Enterprise interiors for the film. Hence, the upgraded bridge from the movie resembles the bright atmosphere portrayed in The Next Generation. For , however, the bridge was once more redesigned to reflect director Nicholas Meyer's more militaristic approach on Star Trek.'' –Cleanse ( talk | ) 23:22, December 6, 2011 (UTC) :Citation found for note 3--Sennim (talk) 10:25, July 25, 2012 (UTC) Split to Constitution class and Constitution (Refit) class ? Do we not think it's about time there were separate articles for the Constitution class and the Constitution (Refit) class? For all intents and purposes, they're entirely different designs and systems. At the moment the article is very long and often confusing, having to mention features multiple times because of their differences. For instance the tactical systems section is messy - it's hard enough to describe the original Constitution class' weapons since cannon is so hazy on it, never mind combining that with the refit. Systems such as the impulse engines are unclear as to if the information listed refers to the original or refit. While they are the same class in name, they're so very different. For ease of reading and finding out information about each version, shouldn't they be split? Thanks, Millionsknives (talk) 20:42, January 15, 2013 (UTC) :Oppose a split. This has been discussed at least once before. As Cobra said on that discussion, modern naval vessels are not considered part of a different class if they are upgraded or refitted, and I don't see a reason to do so here. Starfleet has apparently designed its vessels to be easily upgraded (replaceable bridge modules, computer upgrades, for starters) so separating out upgrades into a different article would draw a distinction that Starfleet doesn't. 31dot (talk) 22:15, January 15, 2013 (UTC) ::Oppose; For very much the same reasons as 31dot states. Furthermore, even if this was considered, consistency would then dictate a further split between the Pilot Connie and the revised Connie of the regular series, which would be too much of a stretch IMHO..--Sennim (talk) 14:11, January 16, 2013 (UTC) :::Oppose; i also agree with 31dot. They are Constitution class starships, one with old tech and one with upgraded tech.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 15:07, January 16, 2013 (UTC) I'd like to just clear up that the debate is not *if* they're the same class; cannon states they are so there's no debate there. (I think my "For all intents and purposes, they're entirely different designs and systems." has been misunderstood as doubting if they're the same class or not. Sorry!) But instead we should focus on what is best for the wikia - in terms of navigation, finding out information, and clarity of subject matter. This article is unique that is has so much to cover on one class of ship, which had two radically different designs in its life cycle. Cramming this all under one extremely lengthy article seems detrimental, when there's such an obvious divide where the article could be split in two. It would make it much neater/clearer/easier to describe each design. Surely this outweighs keeping it as one page purely for its namesake? For a standard wikipedia page where items are summarised it would make sense to keep it all under one page, but being a dedicated Star Trek wikia, where we describe elements in such detail, it would seem prudent to split it? Thanks for discussing! Millionsknives (talk) 13:20, January 17, 2013 (UTC) :Just FYI, it's "canon", not "cannon". :I'm not convinced that it would aid in navigation and finding information; splitting it up makes it harder to find, not easier, aside from giving the impression that it is something separate(even if that's not the intent). 31dot (talk) 13:30, January 17, 2013 (UTC) ::::For what it's worth, I think this suggestion should not be opposed based solely on a nearly seven years old discussion. At the time, the article was just 2/3 of what it is now, and, as has been explained, the split was suggested for a completely different reason then. Looking at the article, I see that it already uses two sidebars (suggesting that there are, in fact, two different topics to talk about) and, skimming through parts of the article, it seems as if the prose is switching from original to refit design and back again a little too often. On the other hand, parts of the article can't really be restricted to either one of the suggested sub-articles (to name just one example, where would the list of "Ships commissioned" go?), so that, in case of a split, it would probably be necessary to keep one "main" article that also has information that is common to both designs, and a "sub" article just talking about the other design. I think it is not that easy to tell whether that would make things more or less complicated - perhaps a temp-page split of the current article is in order, so that we can see what we're talking about? -- Cid Highwind (talk) 14:02, January 17, 2013 (UTC) :I'm certainly open to a temp page to see any proposed changes; I think a subpage could work if done right. 31dot (talk) 14:15, January 17, 2013 (UTC) :::::I think the best solution would be to have two main sections in the article (one for original, one for refit) with both sections having their own sub-sections each of technical information, ships comissioned, etc. - Mitchz95 (talk) 16:37, January 17, 2013 (UTC) ::::How exactly would you perform the split of the current "Ships commissioned" section, then? Take the , for example: it is listed as an "uncertain" member of this class because it had a refit-Constitution icon on some display. However, we can't be sure whether that ship was was actually refit just like the Enterprise, or if it was built as a refit-Constitution - which means that we can't really decide whether it should appear on both lists or just one of them. In turn, that means this hypothetical split would need to be performed in a way that keeps a single "Ships commissioned" list intact, or else we'd be inventing stuff. The remaining suggestion might work, though - separate technical stuff to different sections first, and then see whether splitting to different articles would be sensible. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 17:03, January 17, 2013 (UTC) ::::::One way of going about this might be to split the refit specific info, not so much as a new class page, but a page about all the things that were changed for the refit version of the constitution class. so the "constitution class" page would be the class page detailing all the original configuration info and listing the ships and a ship class page and the new "constitution class refit" page would be an account of the upgrades and would be a sort of technology page only. --Pseudohuman (talk) 18:11, January 17, 2013 (UTC) :::::::1000 times no. The least reason being that this is a wiki, not a "wikia". The paramount reason being that we only have one Starfleet article, for good reason, and same logic applies here: the refit is just continuation of the original design. While this could be split, the problems with doing that far outweigh any benefits. It would be like splitting Data based on how old his head is, of if he has an emotion chip. - 05:44, January 18, 2013 (UTC) ::::::I don't see how my suggestion would be that much different to how we sometimes split off species history from a species article when there is a lot of historical references. or how we split off decks info from ship class pages. --Pseudohuman (talk) 09:08, January 18, 2013 (UTC) ::::We have a Galaxy class model article separate from our Galaxy class article, although model information is combined with in-universe class information in other cases. Our list of Starfleet personnel is split in more articles than I'm willing to count at the moment, although all of them just contain people working for Starfleet. We have four different articles for TOS on VHS, LaserDisc, DVD and Blu-ray, although it could be argued that it's more or less the same thing in every case - a release of all 79 episodes, plus some or other bonus videos. So, the argument that we shouldn't split this article because we generally don't split any article is just wrong. We do it in other cases if the combined information would be overwhelming for a single article, or the resulting article structure too confusing. Whether that is the case here should be discussed based on information from this article alone. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 11:09, January 18, 2013 (UTC) :I think Pseudohuman might be on the right track, if this is done. That might also be what Millionsknives was suggesting in the first place but I was confused at the time. I'm still willing to see a test page of this before giving my final opinion. 31dot (talk) 11:17, January 18, 2013 (UTC) ::I do not think the discussion is about "to split or not to split", but about the feasibility of it. Pseudohuman has, in regard to the decks, a partial point here and I can follow his reasoning (Personally, I would not have split off the decks from the main article, but that aside). Nevertheless, I too still think splitting off "upgrade" from main is both unnecessary and potentially "messy" in regard to allocating information, both in-universe and background (as it is so intertwined), and is more trouble than it is worth, partly for the same consistency reason I stated earlier; how then to handle the Pilot and Series upgrades (or for that matter the two varying appearances of the and eventual others). But I too would be willing to defer judgment to see how a test page would work out --Sennim (talk) 11:29, January 18, 2013 (UTC) :::::::conflicts - MA is flat, so we don't have "sub" articles, though we do have articles for specific info about something, which is reflected in the title. Constitution-class decks is for all info about the decks of the Constitution-class, so Constitution-class (refit) would be for all information about the refit ships, including all the shared info. There isn't a practical way to limit the article to only the differences, nor should we, unless the article is titled as such. Any title I can think of sounds like just the type of thing we've merged into pages like this before, for a number of reasons. :::::::The only reason to split this would be to make it easier to read, because we know that no implicit distinction between the original and refit configurations was made in-universe, at least so far as both of them were labeled as just Constitution-class, so any split would have to make both articles more user friendly than a combined one. It won't though, since the issue with the ships list is only the first thought of problem with this. There will be linking issues (we can't get people to format the links right now). There will be title/name issues as part of the linking problem, since "refit Constitution-class" or "Constitution-class refit" were never used in canon as far as I know, meaning we can only use the "refit" part as a descriptive disambiguation, and it seems to me that, excepting the Enterprise-class thing, an effort was made to not make a name distinction between the two. Related articles, like the Constitution-class deck and model articles, should be split if this one is along with similar articles like the Excelsior and Miranda-class. I don't see a net gain in treating these articles like that when the only issue is this one is a little long. It's not like it's Worf long. - 11:46, January 18, 2013 (UTC) The current set-up isn't beneficial to ease of reading or finding out information at all. I just watched Star Trek II & III and wanted to read up on the Constitution class refit, it's design, geeky technical notes etc. The best the wiki can offer is a page where 1/2 the contents are essentially about a different topic - the original constitution class design. The article often switches between talking about the two designs, and it's sometimes unclear which information is about the first class design or the refit, and all because the articles are together based on a technicality that they're the same class name. Is that really best set up? (Again, I don't deny they're the same class at all. This is a unique situation, though.) Using Worf as a comparison; with Worf there's not the same issue. If someone wants to read about his relationship with Dax, they go to that section and the information is clear. However, if someone want's to read about the Refit's crew Quarters, they go to the Quaters section and it's difficult to find out the relevant information, because it's mixed in (and in this case especially badly) with the original design information. It's just not clear or efficient. This article discusses two versions of the same class which are essentially entirely different entities. It's like if the Worf and Dax articles were merged together because they were married in canon. You're right that the reason to split would be to make it easier to read and easier to find out information - which is a valid reason for a split as isn't that why we have the wiki in the first place? It may not be particularly easy to sort this out due to linking issues etc, but laziness shouldn't stop us improving the wiki. Dividing this article into two sections on one page would help solve the issue in the short term, and it would make a (future) split easier. For readers that want to look up the original Constitution class design, it's a better experience, and for readers that want to look up the Refit design, it's a better experience, and for readers who want to know about both, it's clearer on each design and the other information is just one click away. Everyone seems to win, don't they? Thanks, Millionsknives (talk) 14:45, January 18, 2013 (UTC) ::Oppose and this time definitely. While I was willing to wait and see how a split-off trial page would come across, none has been forthcoming. So for all the reasons already stated no split-off should be pursued. - Sennim (talk) 21:57, February 22, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::For it i love ST, and the Connies but lets face the facts this article has to be the largest one on this Wiki and with books still being written about them the page will get larger, so how about a compromise, move the background information section down to a new page with a link to it on the main page call the main page "Constitution Class" and the new page "Constitution Class Background" that way the main page is the information that tells us about the ship as seen from 1960's-1990's (including the Cage, TOS, and TMP upgrades) and the new page is for people that wants to know the stuff that is "real world" information, i do think the Cage's Enterprise is the 1st "of the fleet yards" model and should have the side bar information she had a smaller crew and less advanced look then Kirk's. just my 2 sense Chasemarc (talk) 21:37, February 22, 2013 (UTC) ::@Chasemarc...interesting suggestion to split off the background info, though I do not think we are there yet. You're right in assuming that there is far more info to add, and I should know since much of the BG info is from my hand, and I know there is so much more. Nevertheless, to return to the matter at hand, a Connie is a Connie, upgraded or not, so refit or non-refit, it matters not, they, as far as in-universe information is concerned, should stick together... - Sennim (talk) 05:30, February 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::Support (conditional). I'm tooting in partly because something I said 7 years ago is being used to oppose a split, though I think that issue of it has already been dealt with. While these are the same class, they are, on a design level, very different from one another and we have a lot of information for before and after refit. I'd like to see test pages made of both before and after refit articles before throwing full support in, but I do think there is enough info to warrant the split. Sennim, you've raised concerns on how to handle the incremental upgrades and whether they need to be split. The answer is, well, no we don't. No one is above is forcing us to do that, and we can use our common sense and say that the TOS series era modifications were incredibly minor compared to the major refit done for TMP. Those incremental series upgrades can be covered in the pre-refit article, and the movie configuration in the refit article. We've done splits before, as needed. This article is already such an example, as shown in our discussion about splitting off the model information. Sennim, during that discussion, you raised similar concerns about a split forcing us to do others. I hope that, by now, you've seen that wasn't the case then, and therefore will not be the case now. As I said four years ago, "splits can be done on a case by case basis where enough material warrants it." I believe that it is warranted for the refit-Connie info, and not for the series incremental upgrades pre-refit. :::::::::By the way, Archduk3, MA is not "flat" and we do have subarticles when they are warranted due to volume of content. As I said 4 years ago, "Ktarian, which has its entire history section internal to the article, while Klingon has history split off into Klingon history." --OuroborosCobra talk 03:29, February 26, 2013 (UTC) :::::::Actually OC, MA is ''explicitly'' flat. I suggest you re-read what I wrote there, because an article on specific information about a subject isn't a "sub-article", it's just an article. Klingon history covers all of Klingon history, it doesn't pick and choose what parts of that history to cover while Klingon covers the rest. Any article about the Connie refit would, and should, cover all the relevant info, not just what's different when compared to the original(s), because we would be creating the article "Constitution class (refit), not the subpage "Constitution class/refit". - 10:34, February 26, 2013 (UTC) ::::And the guideline you linked to uses "flat" with the special meaning of "not using hierarchical article names, like 'Federation/Starships'" (see Memory Alpha:Subpages). It doesn't talk about article splits at all. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 11:07, February 26, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::Archduk3, if I am understanding you correctly, your primary opposition to splitting this article is concern over what the split contents would be, right? You don't want to see something where a "Constitution class (refit)" became just a list of differences between the refit and original configuration? In that case, I agree entirely with your concern, I just don't agree that the solution is to oppose a split. That's why my support is conditional; I want to see a proposed split article written up. I agree entirely with you that it should be a full article that "covers all the relevant info, not just what's different when compared to the original(s)." I think we can do that. We have a lot of content for a full article. The refit configuration has just as distinct an appearance, warp drive, interior, defense systems, even a possible ship list, as almost any other Starfleet ship class. We would have to be clear that it isn't a distinct ship class, but an refit of the original configuration, but that goes into how we write it. :::::::::Earlier, you raised concerns that this could open problems of creating articles like "Data before/after the emotion chip." To that, I respond the same as I have Sennim. We are capable of using common sense to decide how to split our articles. I will grant that an example like Data, since he is a machine, is an attractive example since starships are also machines... but we wouldn't split an article like Worf that way specifically because, no matter the time, Worf was the same individual. Data may be a machine and the emotion chip may be analogous to a "refit," but we treat him as an individual person, rather than a machine, in our article. We can use common sense and say "that doesn't warrant a split." --OuroborosCobra talk 15:13, February 26, 2013 (UTC) :::::::OC: My primary problem with splitting these is I don't agree with the most of reasons given. I don't find the article that long, and if there are parts that are confusing we should at least try to improve the language before resorting to splitting the article, if only because it should be easier to split with clearer language. That said, I too am interested in how a split page would look, but I'm not convinced that should be our first, second, or even third option when addressing the problems raised. :::::::Cid: Our naming conventions and how we deal with subpages, along with how we define, describe, and balance our articles makes it pretty clear we don't want articles where relevant information is purposely left out because another article "above" it already covers it. Pseudohuman's suggestion was to create a "sub article" where relevant info was left out because the article "above" it had already covered it. I'm saying creating a page covering just the differences after the refit is the worst way we could go about splitting these, because we're going to have to, and should for that matter, treat each configuration equally, per the guidelines and the realities of how MA works. - 20:27, February 26, 2013 (UTC) ::@OC:You're right in the matter of my objecting way back then, i.e. splitting off the studio model section. I've come around in my views then. But in that particular case it, eventually, has proven to be relatively easy, as it turned out to be a sharply-defined real world subject that could be easily split off, without ramifications for the in-universe article. Splitting off the whole "refit" thing is IMHO a whole different matter altogether, as it does have "in-universe" ramifications for the article. Though I'm still very much opposed to the notion on principle (a Connie is a Connie, and article length is NO reason whatsoever), I'm willing to see how a test page would work out, though I highly doubt that anybody is willing to do the, in my view, quite considerable work entailed with such an endeavor.--Sennim (talk) 06:51, March 9, 2013 (UTC) two Questions that might have been asked before I have found a cool .GIF that shows the ENTERPRISE (pre-Refit) "turning" into the ENTERPRISE (Refit) located at the following website http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/constitution/connie-ani.gif was wondering if that wold be useful on this page? if so I'll let someone that can edit web pages better then me add it Chasemarc (talk) 06:00, May 24, 2013 (UTC) second Question I know the Budge issues of the 1960's prevented it but in any Books, or Behind the scenes information after the Motion Picture came out did Gene or anyone ever say that the Constitution class Mark-I (the Cage) or Mark-II (seasons 1-3) have a Warp Core like the Constitution Class Mark-III (Refit) that goes all a way down the Engineering Deck (like what we think of as the Warp Core)? Chasemarc (talk) 06:08, May 24, 2013 (UTC) :As far as I know the concept of a centralized "warp core" intermix chamber was invented in TMP. Before that, the elements of the warp drive were just various machinery spread throughout the ship accessible in different rooms and through jefferies tubes. The canonical connie msd seen in Star Trek Enterprise was as far as I know the first time we saw schematics of a centralized warp core under the engineering in a pre-refit connie. :Star Trek Blueprints from the 70s by Franz Joseph was based on the idea that the pre-refit connie nacelles featured all the components of the warp drive inside them, fuel storage and matter/antimatter integrator with dilithium crystals directly before the white bulb at the back of the nacelle, which was the space/warp generator. http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/star-trek-blueprints-sheet-13.jpg according to that, the engineering seen in TOS was just the impulse engineering at the back of the saucer section. http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/star-trek-blueprints-sheet-5.jpg But this was before the writers invented the idea on warp coils, so this concept was "retconned" in the canon constitution class msd. --Pseudohuman (talk) 07:14, May 24, 2013 (UTC) so the short answer is as of Star Trek: Enterprise: In the Mirror Darkly it is canon that the pre-refit Connie has a centralized "warp core" intermix chamber, Scotty just loved the Impulse Engineering deck more, thanks Chasemarc (talk) 08:04, May 24, 2013 (UTC) any answer to the first question i had about that GIF of that shows the ENTERPRISE (pre-Refit) "turning" into the ENTERPRISE (Refit)? or since it's not from a Paramount website it's not usable on MA?Chasemarc (talk) 08:04, May 24, 2013 (UTC) :Well, the engineering that was identified by Joseph as the impulse engineering was relocated in the Star Trek Enterprise MSD to the secondary hull too, to behind the shuttlebay. --Pseudohuman (talk) 08:39, May 24, 2013 (UTC) ::The GIF would only be useable in a background section (because we can't say for sure that this is a valid depiction of the refit process), and could only be used there if we get permission from the creator. Personally, I believe that we don't need that sort of animation if we have images of the ship before and after, plus a description of the changes. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 08:49, May 24, 2013 (UTC) ID Constitution Class Should a reference be added to mention the Constitution Class starship seen in the deleted scenes for Into Darkness? http://trekcore.com/blog/2014/03/exclusive-into-darkness-deleted-scenes-part-ii/ Mokwella (talk) 06:16, March 14, 2014 (UTC) :Makes sense. - 16:00, March 15, 2014 (UTC) ::It could go in as a background note, yeah. --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:23, March 15, 2014 (UTC) :::Yes, any use of the class in the production(even in a deleted scene) should be noted. 31dot (talk) 16:48, March 15, 2014 (UTC) Removed 5 Uncertain ships: These ships have been listed in various references as Constitution''s, but were never seen on screen as such, and are therefore of uncertain class. There was another factor to consider - in the TOS era, ships that were identified as starships were automatically considered to be of the ''Starship-class ship, or in later reference works, the Constitution-type starship. This would account for the inclusion of the USS Carolina in this list, plus the unnamed ships from the Starbase 11 chart. The USS Valiant and USS Kongo were from The Making of Star Trek. *The Eagle, Korolev, Emden, Endeavour, and Ahwahnee, with their respective registry numbers, were all derived from the Operation Retrieve mission charts, seen and unseen in the Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (Special Edition) DVD, where they were represented by Constitution class icons. Michael Okuda, who created the mission charts, hinted at the fact they were intended to be of this class, "If I recall correctly, the charts visible on film/video listed only ship names and registry numbers. One can probably glean some class designations from the ship icons in the diagrams. I don't have the original art handy (I think it's archived on Syquest disks, which I don't have the ability to read, even if I could find the disks themselves), but I recall giving the info to Bjo Trimble, and I'm pretty sure she used most of it in her revised Star Trek Concordance. I might note that some of the ship registry numbers came from Greg Jein's interpretation of the starship chart in Commodore Stone's office in "Shore Leave" (TOS). Other registry numbers came from Franz Joseph's Star Fleet Technical Manual or his Starship blueprints. In still other cases, the ships and/or numbers did not come from either source, but were consistent with some fleet status charts I did elsewhere on the Enterprise-A in Star Trek VI. (In other words, there's something that just about everyone will disagree with, but I also hoped that there would be at least something that almost everyone would agree with.) I should also point out that I prepared several charts for the rescue briefing scene, and that not all of them ended up in the final cut of the film. I don't recall which ones were used, or which ones ended up unseen. I do seem to recall that there was at least one chart that had quite a number of registries - mostly, I recall, from FJ's work - that ended up unused." http://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/2739/3.html MA accepts NCC-1707 as a Connie, even though we have only the silhouette to base this conclusion. Here I am told by Mr. Okuda, who did the chart, that the classes of the ships from the Operation Retrieve chart can be gleaned from the silhouettes. If I am to accept one, then I must the accept the other. One of the ships, the Potemkin, which is known to be a Connie appears in the chart and Mr. Okuda identifies both the Eagle and the Endeavour as Connies in the Encyclopedia.Throwback (talk) 11:58, August 12, 2014 (UTC) :So why then remove this section? First off, it is properly cited Bginfo, not part of the in-universe section, removal therefore is unwarranted...Secondly, if I understand you correctly, the problem of accepting one and not the other is a problem of the in-universe section and not this one, and so long as that issue is not resolved, inclusion of this section you've removed is actually warranted. That being said, I've noticed that you've taken it upon yourself to make these now certain, which is fine by me, though I think that instead of removing this part, you should have adapted the text to reflect where all these ships have their origin in, it is still valid bginfo...--Sennim (talk) 12:41, September 25, 2014 (UTC)